Or at least he was a sovereign lawyer. He's been recently suspended from practicing by the Upper Canada Law Society which I'm assuming is the first step towards disbarment proceedings. And I had the honour of being present at what was probably his last court appearance representing a client! But before we go into that we have to address a basic question, who is Glenn Bogue? He's been frequently featured in Quatloos but always in somebody else's discussion and, shamefully (my bad) he has never been given his own topic. Now that it's almost too late I've decided to rectify that.

First a picture of Glenn right off of his Face Book page. I have to say a disturbing choice for him to post. He looks like Ed Gein just before he started swinging the ax!

Giving a short review of Glenn's life is a daunting challenge considering that he's a renaissance man! Olympic athlete, expert nutritionalist, published author, expert on female orgasms! Heck did I say orgasms? No, nothing as paltry as a common orgasm! Glenn promises women orgasms and beyond to the quantum edge of Stargate!

How does he do this?

... In her Holy of Holies (her womb) the female is capable of producing the wondrous Ormus molecule, which has the quantum capability to not only reverse disease and raise intelligence; it can actually open the Stargate to the Universe!

It's all in this invaluable publication;

Are you a gross tub waddling around still schlepping all that Christmas weight gain? Glenn has the answers to that too!

Our cells were programmed “in the beginning” to produce perfect health. Neither you nor your family should EVER be sick or overweight. Illness rarely if ever is a genetic curse, as if Satan showed up in the womb to foul up your entire lineage. Rather, disease stems from your ignorance about the cells, what they REQUIRE for nourishment, AND WHO FASHIONED THEM! The TRUTH lies with any high school biology teacher. The human cell REQUIRES just 6 nutrients. Today mothers are unable to quickly enunciate these 6 things to feed their children every day; nor can they state the form in which they have to be to be ABSORBED by our cellular structures. This is NOT difficult. You do NOT need an advanced degree in food chemistry. Book I of The Books of Isis series (Are You Gaining Weight and Are You Tired?) lays them out in kindergarten terms.

Why go to a doctor when Glenn can cure what ails you in one inexpensive volume!

And for those of you wracked by religious doubts as to the real identity of Mary Magdalene and her true place in the Christian story try this, where Glenn reveals the greatest secret of all times!

According to the Gnostics, Jesus referred to her as "The One who knew all," who took a front row seat at all of the main events in the life of The Christ. These Gnostics also believed that mankind was the hybrid result of a genetic experiment Today we have mapped our DNA, the mitochondria of which traces all the races of the world back to a single woman in Ethiopia in 200,000 BCE, the exact place and time stipulated by the cuneiform tablets of the ancient Sumerian peoples for the emergence of the genus Homo sapiens.

Those Sumerians called this great woman Ninmah, the Egyptians called her Isis, the Greeks called her Athena, The Sophia, and the ancient Hebrews called her Asherah, The Woman of the Tree and the very consort to the Lord God YHWH. But in the hands of the Catholic Church, She became The Black Madonna.

Legend connects this Black Madonna with both Isis and The Magdalene.

This book, The Black Madonna, sets forth the revelation of that connection, which forms the greatest secret of all time.

He competed for Canada in the 1976 Olympics and claims that he was inducted into the Villanova Hall of Fame.

While working for the Canadian national track team, he tried to prevent the steroid abuses at the national center in Toronto, and resigned when the anti-doping rules would not be enforced against Ben Johnson, who would be stripped of his gold medal at the 1988 Seoul Olympics for steroid violations.

Apparently that comment about trying to turn in Ben Johnson is true;

TORONTO -- A teammate's offer to inform on Ben Johnson was rebuffed by the head of the Canadian Track and Field Association three years before the sprinter tested positive for anabolic steroids at the Seoul Olympics.

A government inquiry into drug use in Canadian sport heard Thursday that CTFA head Wilf Wedmann vetoed a proposed surprise drug test on Johnson in 1985.

Wedmann also nixed a proposed drug hotline for other athletes willing to come forward with information, Glenn Bogue, former CTFA athletes' services manager,told the inquiry.

However it's not clear whether he worked in Ontario as a lawyer after graduation. Instead, he apparently quickly headed to the United States and started trying to get a business going almost immediately. He and his wife tried to start a daycare in 1986 but did not get municipal approval

The Haverford Township Zoning Hearing Board has rejected an application for a use variance for a day-care center at Chelton and Darby Roads. Board members said they shared the concerns of neighbors about traffic and parking problems. Residents told the board at its meeting Thursday that children played in 5 the streets outside their homes in the area, in the part of the Seventh Ward zoned R-4 residential. They said they feared the increase in traffic from parents dropping children off at a center serving as many as 40 preschoolers. Before voting, board member Vincent A. Morelli said, "I prefer we try to keep our residential areas residential." That brought applause from an audience of 20. The vote was 30. The other board members are Edward R. Morgan, chairman, and Joseph Cirillo. The applicants, Glenn Bogue, a lawyer from Ottawa, and his wife, Theresa, a registered nurse, said they had no experience in operating a day-care center. Glenn Bogue is a former track star at Villanova University and a member of the 1976 Canadian Olympic team. In a hearing earlier this month, the board members seemed perplexed about why the Bogues wanted to open a day-care center. Steven J. Campetti, Board of Commissioners president, who attended I the hearing, asked, "Am I to believe that an attorney and a registered nurse are going to give up their professions to operate a day-care center on Darby Road?"? Bogue said that he and his wife were considering relocating. Bogue had bought the property contingent on obtaining a use variance.

He and Theresa had five children but the marriage ended in divorce because the American courts wanted his kids to stuff themselves with candy;

His firm stance on proper nutrition for his children resulted in the loss of custody of his five children by the court of Pennsylvania which felt that candy and dairy were “good for the body” His marriage ended in a divorce that the Catholic Church did nothing to prevent, even though divorce is prohibited by the 1993 Catechism of John Paul II.

He lived in Pennsylvania and we have this minor civil action against him and his wife there in 1992. Probably from his construction contracting days;

After his divorce he declared bankruptcy in 1999 and had his house foreclosed in 2003. In 2011 he made an appeal to the United States Tax Court regarding his 2005 and 2006 Income Tax returns. This is an entirely conventional appeal regarding the disallowance of claimed expenses for his employment in the construction industry.

However footnote six of the decision hinted at the new direction Glenn was taking. It had a comment that Bogue had challenged the constitutionality of the income tax system. So he took his tax complaint to the United States Supreme Court acting on his own behalf!

I was tempted, very, very tempted, to title this part of my postings after a direct quote from Glenn regarding his theory in respect to the origins of the North American aboriginals. Space aliens impregnating ancient Peruvians! Or, as Glenn vividly describes this formative event from the alien fornicator's perspective;

"It's Saturday night boys and here we go! Sperm going everywhere!"

But no. I want this to be a dignified posting so I'll get back to the sperm drenched vista later. This post will cover topic 2 which I noted earlier;

2 - His reportings in Quatloos and recent activities in Canada.

So, with his life in tatters after three decades in the United States, Glenn Bogue returned to Canada and started practicing law in Ontario, thirty years after first being admitted to the Ontario bar. This, as far as I know, was the first time he'd practiced law in Canada and his legal career here, which I'm guessing is soon to end (more on that later), lasted only two years. In that time he has, as far as I can determine, lost every single case that he's litigated. Given this peerless and potentially soon to be tragically terminated career I think it fitting to give you all a photo of Glenn in his Canadian court lawyerin' garb;

Sure beats that manic axe murder shot in my previous posting.

Glenn seems to have almost immediately acquired an unconventional client base. We've covered Glenn in the following in Quatloos discussions;

I'm not going to go into detail about his activities in respect to the Steinkeys, Debbie, and Sir Miracle. It's all given in detail in the discussions. It's sufficient here to give the opening sentence of my Sir Miracle post where I first note Glenn's involvement in the file.

So, time for a ride on the express train to Crazytown. Sir Miracle is the driver and Glenn Bogue, a Toronto lawyer, is the fireman.

This is the batshit crazy Statement of Claim that Glenn coughed up for that action;

Pure insanity, start to finish and with no legal merit whatever. The Statement of Claim was struck without leave to amend and the action was dismissed. This is a very notable achievement in respect to a Statement of Claim filed by a practicing lawyer.

which could serve as an epitaph for all of Glenn's litigation. It was dismissed for being frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process. Again a rare event when a case is handled by a lawyer but not rare in Glenn's world. The decision reads;

[1] On April 11th, 2016 the Registrar acting at my direction issued a notice pursuant to Rule 2.1.01 advising the plaintiffs that this action might be stayed or dismissed as it appeared to be frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process. Counsel for the plaintiff was also provided with a copy of my reasons (2016 ONSC 2353 (CanLII)) including a temporary stay.

[2] As provided by the notice, counsel for the plaintiffs has provided written submissions in which he attempts to demonstrate that the action should neither be stayed nor dismissed. I did not require submissions from the defendants and for the reasons that follow, the action will be dismissed.

[3] I will not repeat in detail what was said in the original endorsement. Rule 2.1 was enacted not to deprive parties of the right to properly bring matters before the court but to provide a streamlined process to eliminate cases that are clearly an abuse of process before they consume inordinate amounts of time and cost for all involved.

[4] The court of appeal has endorsed the jurisprudence developed under this rule and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada from that decision was recently refused. [1] The rule is therefore to be “interpreted and applied robustly” but “limited to the clearest of cases where the abusive nature of the proceeding is apparent on the face of the pleading” and the pleading justifies “resort to the attenuated process.”

[5] In his response, as directed by the court, Mr. Bogue certifies that he acts for the plaintiffs and was expressly authorized to issue the statement of claim. I am satisfied therefore that the plaintiffs instructed Mr. Bogue to bring this action and that they did so with the benefit of his legal advice.

[6] The submissions do not adequately address the abuse of process posed by a collateral attack on a judgment which was at the time the statement of claim was issued, a judgment under appeal. They do not explain reliance on laws which are not in force or justiciable in Ontario.

[7] The pleading and the submissions make certain assertions about the constitutional recognition of aboriginal rights including metis rights. It is abundantly clear that such rights must be recognized by Canadian courts and it is equally apparent that the extent of such rights are justiciable in the courts of Ontario.[2] Similarly, international law and international treaty obligations of Canada may form part of domestic law. To assert those rights, however, they must be properly brought before the court. It is not enough to simply recite constitutional rights or historic wrongs in a pleading to give the pleading merit. The action must be properly framed and constituted. That is not the case here.

[8] The plaintiffs also call upon “the common law of the land” as if that is some pre-existing super constitutional principle which the court must recognize. The common law in force in Ontario has a precise definition. It is the common law of England as it existed on October 15th, 1792[3] as subsequently modified by Canadian judicial decisions, by statute and by the Constitution of Canada.

[9] With respect to judicial immunity from civil claims, Mr. Bogue refers to the Nuremberg trials to illustrate that there are limits to immunity and that judges participating in “crimes against humanity” or “genocide” cannot hide behind judicial immunity. The pleading however contains no allegation against the judges beyond the discharge of their ordinary judicial functions. Nor does he address the jurisdiction of an Ontario court over an Alberta judge.

[10] As was the case with the pleading, the submissions refer to the “International Tribunal Against Church and State” and the “International Common Law Court of Justice” which allegedly indicted and convicted The Queen, The Pope and Prime Minister Harper of murder and conspiracy to murder. These are non-existent or self-created tribunals which cannot be recognized by this court and whose decisions can have no relevance to creating a cause of action against these defendants.

[11] In his submissions, Mr. Bogue defines the plaintiff father as “sovereign” or “sovereign metis” with “an allodial land claim that reaches back to the Saxon kings and Magna Carta”. These are examples of what courts have identified as a strategy of pleading “specific and irrelevant formalities and language” portrayed as having legal significance. This is a hallmark of much frivolous litigation in Canada designed to “disrupt court operations” and to frustrate the legal rights of litigants.[4]

[12] As drafted the statement of claim contains no recognizable cause of action. It is on its face an abuse of process and none of the defendants should be called upon to respond to it.

[13] The court therefore orders as follows:

1) Pursuant to Rule 2.1.01 (1) this action is dismissed as it appears to be frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process.

2) As the defendants were not called upon to make submissions, I decline to order costs.

This was an appeal from yet another trial loss. Glenn was acting for a woman who was injured in an accident crossing the road. This, from the appeals decision, is what happened at the original trial;

[3] On December 2, 2009, a car struck the appellant, Lynda Arcari, as she crossed the street in front of a hospital in the City of Kitchener, beside a crosswalk. The appellant’s original lawyer hired an accident reconstruction expert to produce a report about the cause of the accident. This engineer found that the driver’s speed caused the accident. The appellant sued the driver in December of 2010 and her action was set to go to trial in September 2015.

[4] However, the appellant hired a new lawyer. When he attended at the accident scene, it was “obvious” to him, given what he asserted in oral argument to be his unique professional experience, that the design and safety features (or lack thereof) at the crosswalk were contributing factors to the 2009 accident. The appellant accordingly moved to add the respondents, the City of Kitchener and the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, as defendants.

[5] The motion judge observed that the appellant’s expert "attended at the accident scene within one year where all of the design features or deficiencies were there to be seen, noted and reported on.” The motion judge found that the respondents’ alleged negligence “was as close to within the “actual knowledge” of the [appellant’s] lawyer and engineer as it can come”. In his view, it was not a case in which discoverability and due diligence could play a role in extending the limitation period. He concluded that the appellant ought to have known that an act or omission of one of the respondents had contributed to her injuries. He awarded the respondents costs, calculated on a substantial indemnity scale, in the amount of $14,000.

So right off the bat representing a new client Glenn cost her $14,000.

So he appealed and this is what the appeals court decided;

The Appellant’s Position Regarding the Discoverability Issue

[11] The appellant argues that the motion judge erred in concluding that she ought to have known that an act or omission of the respondents contributed to her injuries. She submits that she has a reasonable explanation as to why she could not have discovered her claim against the respondents through the exercise of reasonable diligence. She hired an expert engineer who did not identify the respondents as having contributed to her injuries. Counsel (note - Glenn) argues that hiring the engineer was sufficient due diligence to postpone the limitation date. He does not suggest that her expert was negligent. Rather, counsel says that the issue was so complex that that it was not even obvious to the engineer, although it was to him.

[12] In her factum (but not in her oral submissions), the appellant further argues that the motion judge failed to take into account the full extent of her injury in assessing discoverability.

And Glenn won! Well, he won a symbolic victory, which is about as good as it gets in Glenn's world. The court dismissed the appellant’s motion to add the respondents but it granted leave to appeal the costs disposition at the original trial. The court felt that the $14,000 awarded was too high and reduced the amount to $10,500. But since the court then tacked on another $5,500 in costs for losing the appeal she was liable for a total of $16,000 in costs, $2,000 more than she would have paid had she not made the appeal.

Glenn of course appealed this outrageous decision to the Supreme Court of Canada but leave to appeal was not granted.

Bogue actually seemed to act fairly reasonably in this one given that it is Glenn Bogue we're discussing. The issue was a client attempting to revive some long dead litigation now past the statute of limitations and, like Arcari v Dawson, Glenn, or his client, wanted to add new defendants to it.

Bogue argued for allowing the clock to run on the limitation period because his client was medically incapable of pursuing litigation;

[100] Although not mentioned in the plaintiff’s motion record or factum, Mr. Bogue suggested in argument that the limitation period would be extended because of section 7(1)(a) of the Limitations Act which provides that the limitation period does not run during any period of time when the plaintiff “is incapable of commencing a proceeding in respect of the claim because of his or her physical, mental or psychological condition”. I have already discussed in that part of these reasons dealing with litigation delay that there was no medical evidence to support any claim that the plaintiff’s physical, mental or psychological condition prevented him from proceeding with this action. Similarly there is no medical evidence to support any claim that the plaintiff’s physical, mental or psychological condition prevented him from commencing an action against Warner or adding him to the existing action at a much earlier date. In fact the plaintiff admitted at his cross-examination that his medical condition had not prevented him from pursuing this action and that he failed to do so because he had lost interest and was fed up.

But Bogue didn't bother to provide the court with any evidence to support his client's claimed disability;

[36] In fact, on cross-examination, although he initially stated the main reason for not pursuing the action was because he was sick,[9] the plaintiff admitted that his psoriatic condition did not prevent him pursuing this action. In particular when he was asked whether as of July 15, 2014 (the date of the Sokoluk report and four months before the dismissal) “was your medical condition any impediment to you dealing with your lawsuit against Mr. Dineen in any way?”, his answer was “no”[10]. He did not know what his medical condition in the summer of 2014 had to do with his ability to pursue the litigation against Dineen.[11] Indeed his medical condition did not prevent him from filing a notice of intention to act in person in February 2014. It did not prevent him from dealing with the title issues and retaining a lawyer to have his mother’s interest in the property transferred to him and having his aunt’s mortgage discharged in April and May 2014. Further, by July 2014 he was in Toronto and back to work at his print shop and his medical condition did not prevent him from working (although he could arrive late and leave early because he owned the shop).[12]

Instead the court concluded that the client had dropped the litigation because he lost interest in it;

[37] Rather, the plaintiff did nothing to advance his action after Warne was removed as his lawyer in May 2013 was because, at least by the time the status notice was issued, he “wasn’t really interested” in the lawsuit and was “fed up”[13]. He “just mentally gave up” and “didn’t do nothing”.[14] He also stated that and he was out of money and the action was too expensive to pursue[15] although if he wanted to, he could have borrowed the money.[16] He “just figured” he “got screwed and that was it.”[17] With “the stress, it just wasn’t worth it.”[18] He also admitted that getting his mother’s interest in the property transferred to him without the aunt’s mortgage in April and May 2014 was one of the reasons that he lost interest in pursuing the action against Dineen.

Bogue kept getting mixing up regarding which party his client wished to add to the non-existent proceedings.

[62] In case I am wrong in my determination that the action should not be revived, I consider on its merits whether Warne or RH should be added as a party to the action. It is unclear whom the plaintiff wishes to add as a party. The plaintiff and Mr. Bogue have from time to time talked about adding Warne as a defendant and the heading in the plaintiff’s factum is “Adding Mr. Warne as a Party”, but the notice of motion in the motion record is for an order “adding Ricketts, Harris as a defendant”. Given my view that neither defendant should be added, it is not necessary to resolve this contradiction, however I will assume that the intention of the plaintiff was to add both Warne and RH as defendants.

And the judge wasn't happy about Bogue and/or the plaintiff making an unwarranted claim of fraud against one of the proposed defendants then not bothering to provide a cause of action in respect to the purported fraud;

[88] The second claim advanced against Warne is “for fraudulently advising the court” (on the motion to be removed from the record) that he had obtained the plaintiff’s consent to the motion although the plaintiff strongly objected unless the retainer was repaid. In the facts supporting this “claim” the plaintiff pled that Warne obtained the removal order while misadvising the plaintiff that he should not be coming to court to address his concerns about a refund. There are two fatal problems with this claim.

[89] In the first place, the claim is out of time. The discussion with Mr. Warne’s articling student about whether it was necessary for the plaintiff to return to court (as described earlier in these reasons) took place on the date that the motion was heard, May 15, 2013. Master Peterson’s removal order citing in the preamble that “the client having advised counsel that he would not be appearing to oppose” was served by mail on the plaintiff on May 16, 2013. It is deemed to be served on May 23, 2013[59] and the plaintiff admits having received it. The limitation period expired, at the latest, on May 23, 2015, more than a month before the notice of motion to add RH was served.

[90] Secondly the claim as set out in the proposed amendments is untenable and sets out no cause of action. The other claims advanced are for “refund of retainer” and “damages” for negligently causing pain, but for this claim the plaintiff states only that he makes a claim against Warne for “fraudulently advising the court…” He does not claim any damages arising from this alleged fraudulent advice nor does he seek any declaratory or other relief. In the absence of any damages or other relief claimed for Warne’s “fraudulent” statement to the court there can be no cause of action in fraud or otherwise.

[93] While the evidentiary foundation that could prove or disprove the proposed claim is not to be considered on the motion (and I have not considered it), I wish to make it clear that the claim made that Warne fraudulently advised the court that the plaintiff consented to the removal motion is clearly not true. Firstly, the preamble to the order refers to the plaintiff “having advised counsel that he would not be appearing to oppose” and does not say that the plaintiff “consented”. Secondly the plaintiff admitted on cross-examination that he told the student that he would not be re-attending to oppose and the student should just do what he had to do to get it done.

This was just a short and simple appeal review of a woman wanting out of jail. However, just as in the court hearing I recently attended in the Debbie Anderson trial and reported in Anderson's discussion, Glenn has a problem figuring out exactly what jurisdiction an appeals court has;

ENDORSEMENT

[1] Justice LaForme dismissed a motion for an order releasing the applicant on bail and he refused a request to expedite the appeal in what was then an ongoing habeas corpus proceeding. The applicant seeks a review of that order. The applicant has been released on bail rendering any question of the lawfulness of her continued detention and the related habeas corpus proceeding moot.

[2] The applicant’s submissions, in our view, have no connection to the merits of the order made by LaForme J.A. and give no cause to review the terms of that order. It seems that the applicant wants this court to dismiss the outstanding criminal charges because, in her view, she was improperly detained in solitary confinement for a period of time pending trial. The propriety of the charges and the propriety of the continued criminal proceedings are not properly before this court at this time. Those are matters for the trial court and we understand they have been scheduled in the trial court.

[3] The motion to review the order of LaForme J.A. is dismissed.

[4] We agree with the Crown’s submission that the underlying appeal is moot. The appeal is dismissed.

So on to his current personal problems with the Law Society of Upper Canada. Somebody's put a bee in their bonnet about Glenn's somewhat unorthodox litigation style resulting in a Glenngagging. He's been suspended from practicing as an Ontario lawyer which, as far as I'm aware, extends to all of Canada. He can certainly no longer practice here in British Columbia. As I just posted in the Anderson discussion;

Debbie was (as far as I was aware) scheduled for a case management conference at 10:00 AM on April 12th. As always I was on time but just as I was approaching the court entrance I saw the Crown counsels walking out. So I accosted them with questions about what happened. Turns out that the hearing was scheduled for 9:15 and lasted about five minutes. Immediately at the start Glenn told the court that he could no longer represent Debbie because the Law Society of Upper Canada had suspended him from practicing law!

This was his original suspension hearing order issued March 24th 2017 which was hanging over him at the hearing on April 11th. His hearing was scheduled for April 12th.

1. The Law Society has received evidence that raises serious concerns about the Responding Parties competence and/or capacity to practice law.

2. In representing clients in a number of litigation matters, the Responding Party has repeatedly relied on unsupported theories and arguments that misunderstand the nature of the Canadian legal system and basic principles of law.

He told the Court that the Law Society of British Columbian sent him letter telling him he needed a permit to practice in BC. As I understand it he must now apply for a permit. He doesn't currently have one because the Law Society generally allows lawyers from other provinces to represent clients in British Columbia without one. However once he was scheduled for a suspension hearing the Law Society decided that he required a permit which I'm doubting they will grant him if they take a good look at his judicial history.

I attended an Anderson hearing on April 11th in Vancouver which I've recorded on Debbie's discussion. Glenn attended by phone and took the usual judicial shitkicking. That might well have been his last appearance acting as a lawyer for a Canadian client. If so, what will Glenn focus on next? What other interests does he have?

Nutrition for openers. I got that courthouse shot of Glenn from this website;

I am a Nutritional Historian, Author and Lawyer. My main passion is nutritionally accurate information...what the human cells are to be fed...what they are programmed ultimately to do...and who fashioned them.

He said on this website that he owns Wisdom's Choice Supplements. However checking into his claimed business got me this almost unique response from Google;

"No results found for "Wisdom's Choice Supplements""

And keep in mind that he claims he was divorced because the Pennsylvania courts wouldn't allow him to give his kids a healthy diet.

He also may now finally have some time to finally finish that Fifth Book of Isis. But his primary interest seems to be new-age craziness.

8-10 minutes - Tax in the US can only be assessed against corporations.

13-15 minutes - US Tax Court and Federal Court litigation - 1916 Income Tax Act is not valid, income is only from real estate, vs wages.

18-20 minutes - I was a fat contractor, until I learned about enzymes! Now I have photographic memory again!

23- 25 minutes - I filed a SCC appeal for the Mohawk Medicine Man - Harper kidnapped the children to get a pipeline built! OH, and a US Indian Chief has Kai Chek's Chinese Nationalist government assets.

32-34 - Glenn talks about sexual fluids

60-61 - Taxation in Canada is 75-80%!

63-65 - Glenn meets a very tall woman who is a tree.

107 - he related how wondrous things are happening in the bedrooms of the nation as a result of his Stargate orgasms.

108 - He started on about how the Christ-consciousness would be re-established starting in the aboriginal world through the Clan Grandmothers. He's going to start an aboriginal gold-backed bank that "the people" own. This will somehow demolish Trump. He sued the Basil Bank of International Settlement for "the global debt" in exchange for all the deaths of all the aboriginal people in Canada. "Did you win?" Sadly the case was ruled frivolous. By a white Polish female judge! He implied that the judge thought the aboriginal deaths frivolous rather than the legal merits of his case. Apparently Canadian judges base decisions on the wrong laws. They are supposed to use the laws of the ancient tribes of North America.

Our aboriginals are the result of ancient alien gods "fornicating" with Peruvians. A quaint way to put it. He could have said "breeding" with Peruvians or impregnating them but he went with fornicating. Bogue cited Chariots of the Gods as a reference source and gave this memorable description of the fornication process "It's Saturday night boys and here we go! Sperm going everywhere!" Then Glenn told how he went through a Stargate to Sweden and back in a single moment while, I believe, having an orgasm. Then what sounded like a hungry cat started yowling in the background and it was time to stop.

"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

Then Glenn told how he went through a Stargate to Sweden and back in a single moment while, I believe, having an orgasm. Then what sounded like a hungry cat started yowling in the background and it was time to stop.

I can understand that - every time I go through the stargate to Sweden for an orgasm the cat wants feeding. It's so off putting.

OK, Burnaby, the sad saga of A Canadian Sovrun in Judge Roberts' Court.

It began with a Tax Court petition. Based on the decision, Bogue raised ordinary issues, mainly deductions the IRS had disallowed. He mostly lost. The Court provided a hint of things to come when it ruled that Bogue was subject to section 6662 penalties for substantially understating the tax due. And even that is not very serious - not a frivpen, for example. Bogue appealed to the Third Circuit.

The appellate docket begins inauspiciously - an in forma pauperis petition. Bogue has been a lawyer since 1985, and he can't pay the filing fee in 2012? Well, IFP applications are sealed, so we can't tell if Bogue informed the Circuit that he was a lawyer in the first place. In any event, he received IFP status and files his brief.

This is where the stupid begins. Bogue, you see, believes he has a live one here, folks:

The constitutional issues surrounding the massive judicial confusion that exists throughout all the Federal Circuits regarding the force and effect of the 16th Amendment

What "massive judicial confusion"? Silly me, I thought it pretty well accepted that the 16th simply renders any distinction between direct and indirect taxes irrelevant when discussing income. Nope. Bogue elaborates, albeit ungrammatically:

The Constitutional issue that affects every single person living on American soil, to wit: Did the 16th Amendment merely add property as a basis for Excise taxation on corporate activity as affirmed by THE SUPREME COURT in both Brushaber and Stanton decisions?

Or

Did the 16th Amendment remove the regulation of "without apportionment" that was preventing the Congress from directly taxing private property (income from an inalienable right), as held by some lower courts but declared "destructive" and "erroneous" by The Supreme Court?

I have no idea what he is babbling about. Anyone who wants to try to figure it out, read his brief (or his reply brief). Hint: it won't help.

More importantly, the Third Circuit didn't try to figure out what Bogue was babbling about either. The opinion dismisses twenty-five pages of blather in two sentences:

Bogue also challenges the constitutionality of this country's income tax system. We have already rejected such arguments as frivolous and need not discuss them further. United States v. Connor, 898 F.2d 942, 943-44 (3d Cir. 1990).

Bogue is fortunate that he wasn't sanctioned. It appears that the Circuit did not know that he was a lawyer, luckily for him. Bogue moves for rehearing en banc. Denied.

Not satisfied with failing three times, Bogue petitions for cert. The govt doesn't bother opposing. Denied.

Be fair Wes, that must be top-notch lawyerin', I can't make any damn sense out of it. But then again I know nothing about American law. Which apparently puts me and Glenn on the same footing.

I don't think he was a lawyer at that time, at least practicing. He seems to have headed south as soon as he was admitted to the Canadian bar in 1985 without, as far as I can tell, having practiced in Canada. I've seen nothing to indicate he ever practiced, or even qualified, in the United States. He seems to have been mostly in construction during his 30 years there. His Tax Court appeal and his subsequent appeals up to the Supreme Court may well have been the first time he ever acted as a lawyer, albeit Pro se. He only went full-fledged lawyer when he returned to Canada two or three years ago. It seems strange to me that the Ontario Bar would allow him to practice given that he'd qualified almost 30 years earlier but had never actually practiced in Canada.

"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

Burnaby49 wrote:Be fair Wes, that must be top-notch lawyerin', I can't make any damn sense out of it. But then again I know nothing about American law. Which apparently puts me and Glenn on the same footing.

I don't think he was a lawyer at that time, at least practicing.

It's no wonder Glenn's flirting with disbarment. He seems to have long ago bought into American anti-tax woo. It is not surprising that he came back to Canada and proceeded to buy a similar line of BS.

What I find interesting that someone would do the study necessary to pass the bar and having gotten nothing from that study goes on to drink again from the same glass of woo koolaide he drank before he passed the bar.

It's happened here in the US. And there was a guy on the old Ickes forum who was planning to go through Australian law school so as to figure out how the powers that be had rigged the system for the Jewish bankers.

The "professions" have a problem with such things. Don't try getting a teacher's certificate so you can sleep with teenage students. Don't become a doctor so you can sell patent medicines. Don't become a licensed home inspector so you can ignore wood rot and termite damage for a price. Don't become a notary so you can pass on phony freeman documents.

notorial dissent wrote:Truly amazing. It would seem his fixations are child custody, and tax and mortgage issues. Apparently mirroring his own life.

I have a lot more information on him I didn't post because it started getting too personal and I didn't want to start getting into issues his family was also involved in. But yes, the man hit the ground running when he returned to Canada.

"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".